Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 20 of 1969 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 239 of 1968, decided on 20th April 1970.

Art. .62‑Review‑No error disclosed in impugned order justifying re‑opening of matter‑Petition for review of order dismissed:

Hail Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad and others P L D . 1967 S C 233 ref.

Sh. Abdul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Zubair, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th April 1970.

This petition seeks a review of our order dated the 2nd of October 1969, whereby the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 239 of 1968 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

No error has been disclosed, in the impugned order to justify the re‑opening of the matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the case of the petitioner's entitlement to the garden in dispute is still pending with the Central Government. He has cited the case of Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad and others (P L D 1967 S C 233) for the contention that proof of entitlement by means of an entry in the special jamabandi as required by para. 29 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, can be relaxed by the relevant authorities and that the collateral proof which in this case was furnished by the letter of the Deputy High Commissioner supporting the petitioner's entitlement could be accepted.

If the petitioner's claim is still pending for decision by the Central Government, he may pursue the matter there. It would be for the Government to judge as to what proof it considers adequate or necessary to uphold the petitioner's contention. If be gets a favourable order from the Government, he may try his luck again with the Settlement Authorities.

This review petition has no substance and is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.